I Don’t Need An Assault Rifle To Shoot A Duck!
BY Herschel Smith
10 years, 1 month ago
Minnesota Rep. Rick Nolan (D) on Wednesday defended his call for gun safety laws by joking that his Republican opponent might need a military-style assault rifle to shoot ducks, but he didn’t.
Following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, Nolan had told CBS News that an assault weapons ban was just “common sense.”
Nolan’s opponent, Stewart Mills, and the Minnesota Republican Party have pointed to the statement as evidence that the congressman wanted to limit gun rights.
“Stewart, what I said on CBS Face the Nation was that I don’t need an assault rifle to shoot a duck,” he explained at a debate for Minnesota’s 8th District on Tuesday. “And I don’t. Perhaps you do. Maybe you should spend more time at your shooting range.”
“The fact is, right now, you can only have three shells in your gun when you’re shooting ducks,” Nolan continued.
On Face The Nation, Nolan said:
… an assault weapons ban is “common sense legislation.” “I’m a hunter. Believe in second amendment rights. But you know what? I don’t need an assault weapon to shoot a duck,” Nolan said. “And I think they ought to be banned, and I think we need to put a ban on the amount of shells you can carry in a magazine, and I think we have to strengthen our background checks.”
So I’m doubting that Mr. Nolan is really an avid hunter like he says. In fact, given the duck hunting with assault rifles, shells in magazines and so forth, I’m concluding that Nolan doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about.
On October 9, 2014 at 3:39 am, Carl In Alaska said:
Guess what duffass? “In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
Don’t think it can’t happen? It already has!
“How is that working out for you now, Elmer?
A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit by a hunters’ group that had challenged Pennsylvania’s long-standing ban on Sunday hunting, saying she saw no proof the hunters’ constitutionally protected rights were being harmed.
U.S. District Judge Yvette Kane made the ruling in a suit brought by the Lancaster County-based Hunters United for Sunday Hunting against the Pennsylvania Game Commission, the agency that enforces the state’s game code.
Kane said she could find no proof that courts have extended Second Amendment protections to include recreational hunting. She also found that the hunters could not prove that the law unfairly discriminated between classes of hunters or that the ban on Sunday hunting violates their religious freedoms.”
Good Luck FUDD
On October 10, 2014 at 4:41 pm, revjen45 said:
Hunting ducks with a rifle of any kind is called poaching. I have been hunting once in the last 32 years. Does that mean I have no need for a scoped bolt action center fire rifle? In the event of a home invasion my first choice would be a high cap semi auto carbine. Clowns of his ilk consider ALL assaults on 2A to be “common sense.”